Murder at Fort Bragg

Ok now I know the source isn't like an authority but Oprah is gonna be doing a show on this subject today. Might have some info on it, that no one has ever heard before. I think I might actually tune in to watch it even.

Originally posted by Copzilla She's probably going to rehash the domestic murder situation that happened right after Operation Enduring Freedom. There was a rash of spousal homicides immediately following the troop's return...

Lots of speculation why, not the least of which was combat shock, spousal infidelity while the troops were away, etc.

I caught the last 10 - 15 minutes of it. Apparantly Oprah had as guests the mothers of 2 of the victims. She also had some Domestic Violence advocat who was blaming the military, an ex-military man turned psychologist (I think, not sure) who was pretty much defending the soldiers and pointing out that often times what happens in the military is that one day you're in the battle field, and the next you're at home, and that soldiers will not speak to their superiors because of the 1 strike rule - 1 mess up, and you're out. She also had someone who's on the domestic violence panel for the Pentagon.

I should have watched it from the start, because I didn't understand what the outcome was.

December 8, 2002
Wife Beating Seen as Epidemic in U.S. Military
By REUTERS

Filed at 11:32 a.m. ET

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (Reuters) - A spate of murders involving military spouses at the Fort Bragg army base has focused new attention on domestic violence in the U.S. armed services, which critics say the Pentagon has failed to adequately address.

Though the military acknowledges it could do a better job collecting statistics on domestic violence by service personnel, studies have suggested that abuse rates are two to three times higher than in the civilian population.

Defense Department estimates suggest incidents of domestic violence in the military rose from 18.6 per 1,000 marriages in 1990 to 25.6 per 1,000 in 1996. Rates fell slightly from 1997-1999 but there were more moderate to severe incidents.

The figures did not include an unknown number of cases not reported or handled informally by commanders, or violence against girlfriends or unmarried live-in partners, who have no legal standing in the eyes of the military.

``The military has simply not come to terms with the problem. They've known about it for a long time, and have repeatedly acknowledged the severity of the problem, but they have not dealt with it,'' said Terri Spahr Nelson, a former army psychotherapist and author of a book on rape and sexual harassment in the military.

At Fort Bragg, home of elite U.S. airborne divisions and Special Forces, four soldiers allegedly killed their wives in June and July. Three were Special Forces soldiers who had served in Afghanistan. Two committed suicide and the other two were charged with murder. One victim was stabbed 70 times.

In a fifth case, a major in the Special Forces was allegedly killed by his wife, who was charged with murder

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-military-abuse.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

The story quotes University of North Carolina social anthropologist Catherine Lutz: "The military has an enormous investment in each of its soldiers, but especially for those in elite units like Special Forces. That makes them very reluctant to take any action, knowing that the military would have to shrink quite a bit if they got rid of all the known abusers...There is also a culture of hostility toward women in the military which includes the rape of female and some male soldiers and civilians, lesbian and gay bashing and brutal hazing rituals.''
'

And you're not? How am I biased not to see something if I were aware of the truth to it?

Domestic violence in the Army, at least, is no different from domestic violence in the rest of the US. How many American men--and hey, let's go ahead and shrink that down some, how mant white American men murder their spouses?

I'm extremely sorry, Robaire, but Oprah and likes do not necessarily expose the entire truth. Only the part they want people to know about.

Almost anything the media covers with regards to the military is skewed, because the media is not interested in fairness.

Steve, I get that from my brother all the time. If I defend or dispute some fact regarding the military I am brainwashed. How anti-military do you have to be to consider more experience less relevant?

I spent 6 years on active duty and 21 years in the reserves with many years over 100 days on active duty. I do not believe the incidence of spousal abuse is higher. I believe it is better reported rather than under. The military does not tolerate this behavior and never has. They may be units where the commander is frigging fool, but barring those, the military has no tolerance for abuse of people needing protection.

Having said that the strain on a military marriage with long separations etc. is something few civilians face. And especially not with being far from home on poverty wages before the separation. The Army has many resources. It still must overcome the machismo attitude against seeking help. But a large drop in the military if enforced? Robert, that is a bit insulting.

Guys, data seem to show that Steve and Ravenink both are wrong in guessing that the incidence of domestic violence in the military is the same as in the general population. I haven't got time to do intensive research, but a dug out a few simple statistics. The data for the two populations are not quite comparable but I think I have made enough in the way of adjustments to at least be able to see if the numbers are about the same. They are not. The incidence in the military is greater than among the general population.

1) The military, from the news article:

"Defense Department estimates suggest incidents of domestic violence in the military rose from 18.6 per 1,000 marriages in 1990 to 25.6 per 1,000 in 1996. Rates fell slightly from 1997-1999 but there were more moderate to severe incidents....The figures did not include an unknown number of cases not reported or handled informally by commanders, or violence against girlfriends or unmarried live-in partners, who have no legal standing in the eyes of the military."

2) The general population, from the Department of Justice, some data.

Average annual rate per 1,000 population of
single-offender violent victimizations,
1987-91

Violence between intimates includes those murders, rapes, robberies, or assaults committed byspouses,ex-spouses,boyfriends, or girlfriends.

Most violence between intimates is assault: the intentional inflicting of injury on another person. In 1992, 81% of the violent victimizations committed by spouses and ex-spouses were assaults. The remainder were rapes and robberies, which also may have involved assault.

Comparison:

In the military in the early 90s there were over 19 instances of domestic violence per 1000 marriages. Does not include domestic violence among non-married living-together couples, nor cases not reported or handled informally. Do not know if it includes rapes and robberies, or if it is just assaults.

Seems that in the general population there are 5 cases of domestic violence against women by intimate partners per 1,000 population. Converting that to number per married couple can be done roughly as follows: total population in households about 223M in 1990. Number of married couples living together 66.1M and 223.0/66.1 = 3.4. Estimated incidence of domestic violence per 1000 marriages, 5 x 3.4 = 17. However, this understates the true number per1000 marriages since the numerator of the ratio, number of cases of domestic violence includes cases among intimate but not married couples as well as the married couples whereas the military do not include those cases.

With more diging a more definitive analysis could be done, but I would have to charge my usual exhorbiitant consulting fee to do more of this shit work, and I think the results would be about the same.

Yes -- they are significantly different when the military ffigure does not include some of the things the other one does, and when the general population is thus overstated on a comparative basis. The difference is greater than 10%, probably cionsiderably greater. But with large numbers of cases a 10% difference is significant by any standard.

I am not following your math. We are effectively talking about .019% versus .017%. I do not consider that to be a significant difference. I still also do not see how .019% of the military constitutes a huge loss.